1."Federal agencies have the authority to intervene in protests, picket signs, or blockades. The law is impartial: it must be enforced without exception."

2."Federal forces are not required to have judicial oversight for their actions."

3."Forces are not obligated to consider alternative entrances or pathways. If the main path is blocked, their duty is to clear it."

4."This action continues until the flow of traffic is fully restored."

5."To carry out these acts, forces will use the minimum necessary force, which is sufficient and proportional to the situation they are addressing."

6."Instigators and organizers of the protest will be identified."

7."Vehicles used in the protest will be identified and subjected to citations or penalties."

8."Data of the instigators, accomplices, participants, and organizers will be transmitted to the authorities through appropriate channels."

9."Notices will be sent to the judge in cases of damage, such as burning flags."

10."In cases involving minors, relevant authorities will be notified, and the guardians of these youths who bring them to these demonstrations will face sanctions and punishment."

11."The costs incurred by security operations will be borne by the responsible organizations or individuals. In cases involving foreigners with provisional residency, information will be forwarded to the National Directorate of Immigration."

12."A registry will be created for organizations that participate in these types of actions."

  • IzyaKatzmann [he/him]
    ·
    11 months ago

    i don't wanna um actually and in no way do i think the current and prior administrations at any level which could be said to hold office has completely vindicated themselves (as i understand is the case as it is said from countries which were majorly affected, e.g. china and south korea)

    i do think it's important to know the sequence of events and that there was something that some people might point to as "aha! we did apologize, what else do you want!!?"

    I'm not the one to determine if a proper apology has been made, though I like to be informed what such folks might think and what the perpetrators likewise think, oh, and the history or sequence of events.

    I pasted a condensed timeline here, source is wikipedia:

    1957: Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke said to the people of Australia: "It is my official duty, and my personal desire, to express to you and through you to the people of Australia, our heartfelt sorrow for what occurred in the war."

    September 29, 1972: Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka said to the people of the People's Republic of China: "The Japanese side is keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war, and deeply reproaches itself. Further, the Japanese side reaffirms its position that it intends to realize the normalization of relations between the two countries from the stand of fully understanding 'the three principles for the restoration of relations' put forward by the Government of the People's Republic of China. The Chinese side expresses its welcome for this" (Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China).

    September 6, 1984: Emperor Hirohito said to President Chun Doo Hwan: "It is indeed regrettable that there was an unfortunate past between us for a period in this century and I believe that it should not be repeated again."

    NOTE: This one is so lame, i don't know what the original is (i'm assuming it's translated) and this seems so watered down, especially because HE WAS ALIVE THEN ARRGHHH AND IT WAS DONE IN HIS NAME ARSDFLJKGSDKLJF

    July 6, 1992. Chief Cabinet Secretary Koichi Kato said: "The Government again would like to express its sincere apology and remorse to all those who have suffered indescribable hardship as so-called 'wartime comfort women,' irrespective of their nationality or place of birth. With profound remorse and determination that such a mistake must never be repeated, Japan will maintain its stance as a pacifist nation and will endeavor to build up new future-oriented relations with the Republic of Korea and with other countries and regions in Asia. As I listen to many people, I feel truly grieved for this issue. By listening to the opinions of people from various directions, I would like to consider sincerely in what way we can express our feelings to those who suffered such hardship" (Statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Koichi Kato on the Issue of the so-called "Wartime Comfort Women" from the Korean Peninsula).

    August 10, 2010: Prime Minister Naoto Kan expressed "deep regret over the suffering inflicted" during the Empire of Japan's colonial rule over Korea. Japan's Kyodo News also reported that Cabinet members endorsed the statement. In addition, Kan said that Japan will hand over precious cultural artifacts that South Korea has been demanding. Among them were records of an ancient Korean royal dynasty.

    The trend is towards lameness I think. Even repeating the words someone else said before (to honor them or something) would be nice as what was said before seems to accept way more responsibility and, crucially, acknowledges the specifics of what happened.

    None seem to mention the 'presumed supremacy' and 'pan-asian empire' that I think drove some of the ideology. I don't know what else to call that kind of obfuscation besides cowardice.